Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV29777, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29777    Hearing Date: January 30, 2025    Dept: 29

Hernandez v. De La Rosa
22STCV29777
Motion to Continue Trial filed by Plaintiff Brenda N. Hernandez.

Tentative

The motion is granted in part.

Background

On September 13, 2022, Brenda N. Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Sergio M. Delarosa Jr., and Philip M. Mendoza (collectively “Defendants”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence causes of action arising out of an automobile collision occurring on September 16, 2020.

On July 24, 2023, Defendants filed an answer.

On March 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed amendments to complaint adding Year Around Pest and Termite as Doe 1, Year Around Pest and Termite, LLC, as Doe 2, and Nancy Mendoza as Doe 3.

On January 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion to continue trial. No opposition was filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8), provides that the court has the power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. “The power to determine when a continuance should be granted is within the discretion of the trial court.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603.) “A trial court has wide latitude in the matter of calendar control including the granting or denying of continuances.” (Park Motors, Inc. v. Cozens (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18.) 

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for trial are firm.  All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).)

“Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)  “The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.”  (Ibid.)  Circumstances that may support a finding of good cause include: 

“(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 

(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 

(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 

(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; 

(5) The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case; 

(6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or 

(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.” 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) 

“In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d) sets forth a non-exhaustive list of factors that the court may consider: 

“(1) The proximity of the trial date; 

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; 

(3) The length of the continuance requested; 

(4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; 

(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; 

(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; 

(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and 

(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.” 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

“A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.” (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529; accord Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.)

Discussion

The parties jointly request a continuance of the trial date so the parties can participate in mediation scheduled for March 31, 2025. (Nickfardjam Decl., ¶ 5.) Trial is currently set for February 27, 2025.

The Court finds that the parties have established good cause for a reasonable continuance.  Good cause has not been shown, however, to continue trial to August 2025, as the parties jointly request.

Accordingly, the motion is granted in part.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS IN PART the motion to continue trial.

Trial is continued until a date that is approximately 90 days after the scheduled mediation, to a date on or after June 27, 2025.  The Final Status Conference and all discovery deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.